Stella Hines

Case management decision in a family law appeal.

The self-represented appellant sought to perfect his appeal without filing transcripts of the trial evidence, citing inability to pay the estimated $12,000 cost after Legal Aid declined coverage.

The case management judge denied the request, holding that transcripts of all oral evidence and rulings were necessary given the fact-intensive nature of the family law trial and the appellant's grounds of appeal alleging misapprehension of evidence and errors in findings of fact.

The appellant was given a deadline to file proof of ordering and partially paying for transcripts, failing which the respondent could move to dismiss the appeal for delay.

In a family law proceeding arising from the breakdown of a 13-year common law relationship, the court addressed competing motions concerning property rights, child support, and protective orders.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation against the matrimonial home, a non-dissipation order, child support, and disclosure of insurance information.

The respondent sought dismissal of the Certificate application and the exclusive possession order, and opposed child support.

The court granted the Certificate of Pending Litigation based on a reasonable claim to an interest in the property grounded in unjust enrichment principles, terminated the exclusive possession order by consent, declined to grant a non-dissipation order, deferred child support pending the respondent's return to employment, and ordered disclosure of insurance details and financial statements.

The applicant sought compensation for unjust enrichment for her years of unpaid labour on her husband's family's dairy farm, as well as an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The court found that the applicant had enriched both her husband and his mother through her extensive work on the farm and suffered a corresponding deprivation without juristic reason.

The court awarded the applicant $247,029.40 for unjust enrichment based on a value received approach, and a $60,000.00 equalization payment for her husband's equitable interest in the matrimonial home.

The claim for retroactive child support was dismissed.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a jointly owned property and equal division of net proceeds.

The respondent counterclaimed for transfer of the property into her name alone based on unjust enrichment and constructive/resulting trust, citing her significant financial contributions to renovations.

The court found no unjust enrichment regarding the property, as the applicant's equity did not increase, and the parties' reasonable expectation was 50/50 ownership.

However, the court found unjust enrichment regarding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent 85% of its separation value.

The court ordered the property to be sold with net proceeds divided equally, subject to an adjustment payment from the applicant to the respondent for the motorcycle and shared debts.

A family law trial addressing disputed separation date, spousal support entitlement and quantum, child support, section 7 expenses, and property equalization following a long marriage.

The court determined the separation and valuation date as July 1, 2010 where evidence conflicted.

The respondent spouse was found entitled to spousal support on both need and compensatory bases due to her role as primary caregiver and reduced earning capacity.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered indefinitely under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, with child support payable under the Federal Child Support Guidelines and limited retroactive adjustments.

Certain section 7 expenses were credited and set off, and minimal value was assigned to disputed foreign property.